I'd be happy if canon would make a lens equivalent to rather Nikon 14-24. In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body. Okay, I'll wake up now and realize that my dream isn't longer in kansas

In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body.

Actually, quite a few people shoot that combo. There's an adapter from Novoflex that supports use of Nikon lenses on a Canon mount, and the 14-24 is probably the most common use for that adapter. It's manual focus, of course, and the aperture has to be set manually. But since the Nikon UWA zoom is optically superior to the Canon offerings, and most UWA uses involve tripods and plenty of time to setup the shot, it's a viable solution.

I personally would be totally please with a great performing (AS GOOD AS THE NIKON LENS, CANON!) 14-24mm. Let's see if Canon can get that right, first. They are the weakest in the wide-angle zoom dept..so I would prefer to see them get the basics correct before they try breaking any focal length barriers. The last thing I want to see is a mediocre performing 12-24mm. Skip the wide angle extra reach and focus on sharpness across the image plane, low distortion, realistic cost, etc. I don't need a $3000 home run...I will buy a Zeiss 15mm if I need that (hmm...I might anyway! LOL!)...just give us something solid, sharp and useful. I know Canon can do this without screwing it up..I just know that they have the capability.

This seems to be the sentiment of many here.....hopefully Canon corporate occasionally comes here and reads what we have to say...

Just what I suggested in a previous post. I owned the Sigma 12-24 (ver1) and suggested that Canon needed to make a landmark lens as opposed to a me-too lens.They also know that there are plenty of potential buyers even at a $2500+ price.

You'd need a way to get it out of the optical path, when you don't want to lose 1.5-2 stops of light. Perhaps a drop-in type like the supertele lenses use...

Would require a "neck" like the supers have for the filter to seat in the optical path properly and make the lens 17mm longer (width of the current 52 drop in) which may impact the design. It would also be considered an "element" in the lens.

I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!!

In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...

I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!!

If you're using a 7D, why not get the cheap Tamron 11-16/2.8 for astrophotography? Wider, fraction of the cost, and it exists now